Marta Colomina and Liliana Velasquez Case, Order of the Court of December 2,
2003, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. E) (2003).

ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF DECEMBER 2, 2003

PROVISIONAL MEASURES
IN THE MATTER OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA

THE MARTA COLOMINA AND LILIANA VELÁSQUEZ CASE

HAVING SEEN:

1. The Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter
“the President”) issued on July 30, 2003, in which he decided:

1. To call upon the State to adopt forthwith all necessary measures to protect
the life, safety and freedom of expression of the journalists, Marta Colomina
y Liliana Velásquez.

2. To call upon the State to allow the beneficiaries to take part in the planning
and implementation of the measures of protection and, in general, to maintain
them informed about progress in the measures ordered.

3. To call upon the State to investigate the reported facts that gave rise
to these measures in order to identify those responsible and punish them.

4. To call upon the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
on the measures it has adopted in compliance with this Order by August 14, 2003,
at the latest.

5. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present the
comments that it deems pertinent to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
within one week of receiving notification of the State’s report.

6. To call upon the State, following its first communication (supra fourth
operative paragraph), to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and upon the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its comments on the said
reports within six weeks of receiving them.

2. The Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Court”) issued on September 8, 2003, in which it decided:

1. To ratify the Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights of July 30, 2003, in its entirety.

2. To call on the State to adopt and maintain all necessary measures to protect
the life, safety and the freedom of expression of the journalists, Marta Colomina
y Liliana Velásquez.

3. To call upon the State to allow the beneficiaries to take part in the planning
and implementation of the measures of protection and, in general, to maintain
them informed about progress in the measures ordered.

4. To call upon the State to investigate the reported facts that gave rise
to these measures in order to identify those responsible and punish them.

5. To call upon the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
on the measures it has adopted in compliance with this Order by September 15,
2003, at the latest.

6. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present the
comments that it deems pertinent to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
within one week of receiving notification of the State’s report.

7. To call upon the State, following its first communication (supra fifth operative
paragraph), to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and upon the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights to present its comments on the said reports within
six weeks of receiving them.

[…]

3. The brief of the State of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State”) of September
15, 2003, in which it advised that the Municipal Police of Chacao “had been
providing protection services to Marta Colomina, for approximately one year
and seven months” and indicated the names of the persons who provide this protection.
The State also mentioned that on August 5, 2003, it had sent official letters
to the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, the Ministerio Público (Office
of the Attorney General) and the Office of the Ombudsman, requesting that “all
the necessary measures to comply with the said provisional measures” be ordered.

4. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of September 18, 2003, requesting
the State to clarify whether the information it had forwarded on September 15
corresponded to the information requested in the Order of July 30, 2003, or
to that requested in the fifth operative paragraph of the Order of the Court
of September 8, 2003, on the provisional measures.

5. The note of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission”) of October 1, 2003, forwarding the brief of the petitioners in
the case, in which it indicated that the State “had done nothing to comply”
with the provisional measures adopted by the Court. Likewise, it stated that
no State body had contacted the beneficiaries so as to allow them to take part
in the implementation of the measures, and that there was no information to
indicate that the State was investigating the facts. Moreover, the petitioners
explained that the continued silence of the Minister of the Interior and Justice
and the Attorney General was due, at least in part, to criteria established
by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Chamber’s
case law maintained “the pre-eminence of sovereignty, which can only be derogated
exceptionally, in particular and specific cases.” Lastly, the petitioners requested
the Court to summon the parties to a public hearing at its next session in order
to assess the State’s failure to comply with the provisional measures.

6. The comments of the Commission of October 14, 2003, on the State’s first
report in which it advised that the journalist, Marta Colomina, already had
a police escort:

when the ICHR requested the provisional measures and now, three months later,
Venezuela attempts to confuse the Court by affirming that it is granting the
measures of protection, when the truth is that it has not complied with the
Orders of the Court, requiring the State to provide adequate protection to Marta
Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. The Court should also observe that the Venezuelan
State’s brief does not mention Liliana Velásquez, even though she was also protected
by the said measures.

The Commission also indicated that “the State has not presented any information
on the investigations that it was obliged to conduct,” so that “the State is
contributing to ensure impunity in this case.” Consequently, the Commission
concluded that the State “has flagrantly failed to comply with the provisional
measures granted in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez”.

CONSIDERING:

1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, and,
pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the contentious jurisdiction
of the Court on June 24, 1981.

2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases
of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage
to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional matters as it deems pertinent
in matters it has under consideration and, with respect to a case not yet submitted
to it, it may act at the request of the Commission.”

3. That, according to Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court:

At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency,
and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at
the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures
as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.

With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request
of the Commission.

[...]

4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention indicates the obligation of the States
Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure
their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction.
5. That, in general, under domestic legal systems (internal procedural law),
the purpose of provisional measure is to protect the rights of the parties in
dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions
pendente lite.

6. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of urgent and provisional
measures goes further, because, in addition to their essentially preventive
nature, they protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable
damage to persons.

7. That, after examining the documents in the file on these measures, the Court
considers it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the State’s responsibility
to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction
and that this obligation is even clearer with regard to those who are involved
in proceedings before the organs of protection of the American Convention.

8. That, in its Order of September 8, 2003, the Court has already established
that the facts presented by the Commission in its request reveal prima facie
the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency for the life, safety
and freedom of express of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez . In the seventh
operative paragraph, it also decided that “following its first communication
(of September 15, 2003), [the State should] continue reporting to the [...]
Court, every two months, on the provisional measures” (supra second having seen
paragraph).

9. That when the Court ordered the State to adopt provisional measures in favor
of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American
Convention, it also ordered it to provide information on the implementation
of those measures (supra second having seen paragraph).

10. That the Commission has indicated that the State has not complied with
the provisional measures adopted in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez
(supra fifth having seen paragraph).

11. That, after examining the file on provisional measures, the Court has verified
that Venezuela has presented information only once. Moreover, the information
submitted does not reflect effective implementation of the precautionary measures
requested by this Court, regarding the adoption of the measures necessary to
protect the life, safety and freedom of expression of Marta Colomina and Liliana
Velásquez, the participation of the beneficiaries in the planning and implementation
of such measures, the investigation of the facts that gave rise to their adoption
in order to identify those responsible and punish them, and the submission of
the State’s reports every two months. Thus, the time limit for presenting the
pending report on urgent measures expired on August 14, 2003, and for presenting
the pending report on provisional measures on November 15, without either report
having been received.

12. That the State has the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise
to the adoption of provisional measures in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana
Velásquez.

13. That Article 68(1) of the Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties
to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any
case to which they are parties.” Thus, the States must comply with their obligations
under international conventions in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) as established
in Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codifies
a basic principle of general international law and, as the Court has already
indicated and as Article 27 of this Vienna Convention provides, a State may
not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure
to respect the international responsibility that has been established.

14. That the obligation to report to the Court is not fulfilled merely by making
a formal presentation of a document to the Court, but is a dual obligation,
which, for effective compliance, requires the formal presentation of a document
within the established time limit with specific, updated, true and detailed
information on the issues to which this obligation relates

15. That the State must comply with the measures called for by the Court in
its Orders and report periodically on the measures it has adopted to protect
the lives, safety and freedom of expression of the persons protected by provisional
measures in this case; on the investigation of the facts that gave rise to those
measures, and on the steps taken to allow the petitioners to take part in their
planning and implementation. The State’s obligation to report to the Court on
the measures it is taking to comply with the Court’s Orders is fundamental for
assessing the case.

16. That, according to Article 65 of the American Convention:

[t]o each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States, the Court shall submit, for the Assembly’s consideration, a report on
its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases
in which a State has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations.

17. That Article 30 of the Court’s Statute establishes that:

[t]he Court shall submit a report on its work of the previous year to each
regular session of the OAS General Assembly. It shall indicate those cases in
which a State has failed to comply with the Court’s ruling. It may also submit
to the OAS General Assembly proposals or recommendations on ways to improve
the inter-American system of human rights, insofar as they concern the work
of the Court.

18. That, since the State has not implemented the measures ordered by the Court
effectively, has not investigated the facts that gave rise to those measures,
has not complied by allowing the beneficiaries to take part in the planning
and coordination of the measures, and has not complied fully with its reporting
obligation, should this situation persist, the Court, in application of Article
65 of the Convention (supra sixteenth considering paragraph) and Article 30
of its Statute (supra seventeenth considering paragraph), will include this
Order in its 2003 Annual Report, so that it may be submitted to the consideration
of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

THEREFORE:

THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,

in exercise of the authority conferred by Article 63(2), 65 and 68 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, Article 30 of its Statute, and Articles 25 and 29(2)
of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,

DECIDES:

1. To reiterate that the State has not implemented effectively the provisional
measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Order of
September 8, 2003.

2. To declare that the State has failed to comply with its obligation under
Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To declare that the State has still not complied with the obligation to
report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the implementation of
the measures ordered by the latter.

4. Should this situation persist, to inform the General Assembly of the Organization
of American States of the State’s failure to comply with the Court’s decisions,
in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and
Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,.

5. To reiterate to the State the obligation to implement effectively the provisional
measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Order of
September 8, 2003, to protect the lives, safety and freedom of expression of
Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.

6. To reiterate to the State the obligation that it allow the petitioners to
take part in the planning and implementation of the measures of protection and,
in general, that it keep them informed about progress in the measures ordered
by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

7. To reiterate to the State the obligation that it must investigate the reported
facts that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures, in order
to identify those responsible and impose the corresponding punishment.

8. To call on the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
on the measures that it has adopted in compliance with this Order by January
7, 2004, at the latest.

9. To call on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present the
comments it deems pertinent to Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within
15 days of receiving notification of the State’s report.

10. To call on the State, following its first communication (supra eighth operative
paragraph), to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
every two months, on the provisional measures adopted and upon the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights to continue presenting its comments on the said reports
with six weeks of receiving them.

11. To notify this Order to the State and to the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights.